When a catastrophic injury happens, everyone’s attention goes where it should go, to the person in the hospital bed. The surgeries, the transfers, the rehabilitation schedule and the insurance calls fill every hour. Somewhere in the middle of that, a spouse quietly becomes something they never signed up for. Caregiver. Case manager. The one who handles bathing and bowel programs and medication schedules. The one who sleeps in a chair.
Nevada law recognizes that this person was also injured. Not injured in the sense of a broken bone, but injured in a way the law has been willing to compensate for more than fifty years. It is called loss of consortium, and it belongs to the husband or wife, not to the person who was hurt.
It is also widely misunderstood, including by people who have already hired a lawyer. Spouses assume it is a small add-on to someone else’s case, or that it duplicates what the injured person is already claiming, or that it covers lost household income. None of those are right. Here is what the claim actually is in Nevada, where it came from, and the procedural rule that can quietly cost a spouse the claim entirely.
Where the Nevada Rule Comes From
The Nevada Supreme Court recognized a spouse’s loss of consortium claim in General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366, decided in 1972. The facts were about as bad as facts get. Keith Bush was working on the reassembly of a large mining vehicle when an eyebolt fractured and a suspended cabinet came down on him. The court described the result plainly, noting he was paralyzed below the neck, unable to communicate or do anything for himself, with his feeding, bladder and bowel needs handled by others, and a life expectancy of thirty nine years from the time of trial. He was married with two children, and his wife was three months pregnant.
A jury awarded Bush three million dollars and awarded his wife, Dee Ann, five hundred thousand dollars for loss of consortium. The defendants appealed and argued the wife’s award was beyond the law. The court disagreed, and in doing so answered a question it had never decided before.
The reasoning is worth reading because it explains what the claim is for. The court adopted the view that consortium covers a variety of intangible interests a spouse has in the welfare of the other, described as love, companionship, affection, society, sexual relations, solace and more. It found that the basis of recovery is the anguish suffered when injury to the other spouse destroys or impairs the components that make up the marriage, and that this character of harm is real and substantial rather than illusory.
Then it addressed the objection that gets raised in every one of these cases, which is that the couple is being paid twice for the same thing. The court answered that the danger of double recovery is not real, because the injured spouse is recovering for his own injuries and the other spouse is recovering for injury done to herself by the loss of his companionship. In the court’s words, this is an example of a single tortious act which harms two people by virtue of their relationship to each other.
It Is the Spouse’s Own Claim
That last sentence carries more weight than it first appears to. The claim is not a category of the injured person’s damages. It is a separate injury to a separate person, and the spouse is the one who owns it.
Practically, this means the spouse is a party. The spouse gives a deposition. The spouse’s own life before and after the injury is the evidence. Defense counsel will ask about the marriage, about time spent together, about shared activities, about intimacy, and about what has changed. Those questions are uncomfortable, and a spouse who has not been prepared for them by their own lawyer is at a real disadvantage.
It also means the spouse’s story has to be told with specifics rather than adjectives. Juries respond to detail. The couple who spent every Saturday hiking Red Rock and has not been back in two years. The husband who now sets alarms through the night for repositioning. The wife who left a career she had built for fifteen years because there was nobody else to provide care. Those facts communicate the loss. General statements about a difficult time do not.
What the Claim Does Not Cover
General Electric Co. v. Bush drew a line that still matters. The court explained that the right to support is not included in, and is not part of, the consortium claim, and suggested that to eliminate any danger of double recovery, the jury should be instructed that compensation for loss of the injured spouse’s society and companionship should not include additional damages for the right to support.
The distinction is clean once you see it. Lost wages, lost earning capacity and lost household financial contribution belong to the injured person’s case. Those are economic damages and they are calculated by economists. The consortium claim is about the relationship itself, meaning companionship, affection, society, intimacy and the shared life the couple had before.
Medical bills belong to the injured person’s case as well, even where the spouse is the one paying them. And the value of the care the spouse personally provides is generally handled as part of the injured person’s need for attendant care rather than as consortium, which is one reason a life care plan matters even when a family member is doing the work for free.
The Joinder Rule That Can End the Claim
This is the part that catches people, and it comes from the same 1972 opinion. As a safeguard against double recovery, the court required that the spouse will have her cause of action only if it is joined for trial with the injured spouse’s own action against the same defendant.
Read as a practical instruction, that means the consortium claim is not something to file later, separately, once the injured spouse’s case is resolved. It rides with the main case, and it needs to be pleaded in the same lawsuit against the same defendant.
Two consequences follow. First, if the injured person settles alone and signs a release without the spouse being part of the case, the spouse can be left with nothing to join. Second, a spouse who was never told the claim existed may find out about it after the settlement documents are signed, which is exactly the situation you want to avoid.
The fix is simple and it is entirely a front end problem. Raise the claim at the beginning. If you are married and your husband or wife has suffered a serious permanent injury, ask your lawyer directly, in writing, whether a consortium claim is being asserted and whether you are named as a plaintiff. If the answer is unclear, that is worth resolving before anything gets settled.
Who Can Bring It in Nevada
The claim belongs to a spouse. Nevada also recognizes registered domestic partnerships, and NRS 122A.200 provides that domestic partners have the same rights, protections and benefits, and are subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties under law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. That statutory equivalence is the starting point for a registered domestic partner asserting the same claim.
Children are a different story. In General Electric Co. v. Bush the trial court had allowed the three children to recover fifty thousand dollars each for their own loss of their father’s companionship. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and set aside that award, noting that the overwhelming weight of authority at the time was against an independent action by children and stating that the court was satisfied to await legislative action on the issue.
That is a meaningful limit for families to understand. When a parent is catastrophically injured but survives, the children’s own loss of that parent’s companionship does not sit on the same footing in Nevada as the spouse’s claim does.
Death changes the analysis, because a different statute takes over. Nevada’s wrongful death statute, NRS 41.085, allows the heirs of a decedent to prove their own damages, and provides that the court or jury may award each of them pecuniary damages for grief or sorrow, loss of probable support, companionship, society, comfort and consortium, along with damages for the decedent’s pain, suffering or disfigurement. The personal representative separately recovers items such as the decedent’s pre-death medical expenses, funeral expenses, and any penalties including exemplary or punitive damages the decedent would have recovered had they lived. Our overview of the firm’s Nevada wrongful death practice walks through how that statute works in a filed case.
What Actually Proves the Claim
Consortium is proved with evidence about the relationship, and the strongest evidence tends to be ordinary and specific rather than dramatic.
Testimony from people who knew the couple before is valuable, because it establishes a baseline. Friends, adult children, coworkers and neighbors can describe what the marriage looked like. Photographs and video from before the injury do the same work without anyone having to characterize anything.
Records help where the loss has a clinical dimension. Treating physicians and rehabilitation providers can describe the injured spouse’s functional limits, cognitive changes and care needs. Where a spouse has sought counseling because of the strain, those records may become part of the case, which is a decision to make deliberately with a lawyer because it opens the spouse’s own mental health history to scrutiny.
A daily journal kept by the spouse is one of the more useful things a family can produce, and one of the least common. Dates, hours of care, canceled plans, sleep interrupted, activities the couple used to share and no longer can. Written contemporaneously, that record is far more persuasive than a memory reconstructed two years later on a witness stand.
For families adjusting to life after a spinal cord injury, the Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center, funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, publishes free fact sheets on living with spinal cord injury that cover a lot of the practical ground families face in the first year.
Fault, Deadlines and Insurance Limits
Nevada applies modified comparative negligence under NRS 41.141. An injured person whose share of fault is not greater than the fault of the parties they are suing can still recover, with the award reduced by that person’s own percentage of fault. Whether and how the injured spouse’s share of fault affects the consortium award is something a defendant will raise, and it is worth asking your lawyer about early rather than discovering it at trial.
The filing deadline is the ordinary personal injury period. NRS 11.190(4)(e) gives two years to bring an action for injuries to a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another. Given the joinder requirement, the consortium claim needs to be in the same lawsuit within that window rather than being treated as a separate later filing.
Insurance is the practical constraint in most cases. Auto policies usually express bodily injury coverage as a per person limit and a per accident limit, and carriers frequently take the position that a consortium claim shares the injured person’s per person limit rather than opening a second one. That position gets litigated, and how it comes out depends on the policy language. It is one more reason the available coverage should be identified early, before anyone builds expectations around a number.
Cases in this category are usually handled through our catastrophic injury practice, and they most often involve the kinds of harm covered in our spinal cord injury practice and our brain injury practice. If you are trying to understand how noneconomic harm is valued generally, our explanation of pain and suffering in personal injury claims covers the framework, and our article on what qualifies as a catastrophic injury in Nevada explains where the line usually sits.
Asking the Question Before It Is Too Late
If your husband or wife has been catastrophically injured and you have not been told whether a loss of consortium claim is part of the case, that is a question to ask now rather than after a settlement. The Bourassa Law Group offers a free consultation to review how a claim is currently pleaded, whether the spouse is properly a party, and what evidence would support the claim. Nothing about that conversation costs you anything or commits you to anything.
This article is general information about Nevada law and is not legal advice. How a consortium claim is handled depends on the facts of the underlying injury, the way the case has been pleaded, and the insurance and contracts involved.
1-800-870-8910